Acknowledging the role played by character valence issues in affecting parties’ fortunes, several recent papers have investigated the possible intentional use of such issues in electoral contests. A corollary of this line of research has focused on identifying conditions under which parties are expected to invest more in valence campaigning. In this article, we focus on the role played by parties’ relative ideological positions in a multiparty setting. We identify the existence of an inverse relationship between the distance of a party from its ideologically adjacent competitors and its incentive to campaign on character valence issues. However, the extent of this relationship can be conditional on institutional and electoral factors. We test these hypotheses by focusing on the emphasis a party places in its electoral manifestos on the specific character valence issue of corruption. Statistical results largely confirm our hypotheses.
AbneyR.AdamsJ.ClarkM.EastonM.EzrowL.KosmidisS.NeundorfA. (2013). When does valence matter? Heightened valence effects for governing parties during election campaigns. Party Politics, 19, 61-82.
2.
AdamsJ.ClarkM.EzrowL.GlasgowG. (2006). Are Niche Parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties?American Journal of Political Science, 50, 513-529.
3.
AdamsJ.MerrillS. (2008). Policy-seeking parties in a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation: A valence-uncertainty model. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 539-558.
4.
AdamsJ.MerrillS. (2013). Policy-seeking candidates who value the valence attributes of the winner. Public Choice, 155, 139-161.
5.
AdamsJ.MerrillS.SimasE.StoneW. (2011). When candidates value good character: A spatial model with applications to congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 73, 17-30.
6.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M. (2000). Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models. Public Choice, 103, 327-336.
7.
AragonesE.PalfreyT. (2002). Mixed Equilibrium in a Downsian Model with a Favored Candidate. Journal of Economic Theory, 103: 131-161.
8.
AshworthS.Bueno de MesquitaE. (2009). Elections with platform and valence competition. Games and Economic Behavior, 67, 191-216.
9.
BeckT.ClarkeG.GroffA.KeeferP.WalshP. (2001). New tools in comparative political economy: The database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review, 15, 165-176.
10.
BenoitK.LaverM.LoweW.MikhaylovS. (2012). How to scale coded text units without bias: A response to Gemenis. Electoral Studies, 31, 605-608.
11.
BudgeI.FarlieD. J. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London, England: Allen & Unwin.
ButticeM. K.StoneW. J. (2012). Candidates matter: Policy and quality differences in congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 74, 870-887.
14.
ChangE. C. (2005). Electoral incentives for political corruption under open-list proportional representation. Journal of Politics, 67, 716-730.
15.
ChiruM.GherghinaS. (2012). When voter loyalty fails: Party performance and corruption in Bulgaria and Romania. European Political Science Review, 4(1), 29-49.
16.
ChongA.De La OA. L.KarlanD.WantchekonL. (2011). Looking beyond the incumbent: The effects of exposing corruption on electoral outcomes (NBER Working Paper No. 17679). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17679
17.
ClarkM. (2009). Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976-1998. Electoral Studies, 28, 111-122.
18.
ClarkM. (2014). Does public opinion respond to shifts in party valence? A cross-national analysis of Western Europe, 1976-2002. West European Politics, 31, 91-112.
19.
ClarkM.LeiterD. (2013). Does the ideological dispersion of parties mediate the electoral impact of valence? A cross-national study of party support in nine Western European democracies. Comparative Political Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0010414013488537
20.
ClarkeH. D.SandersM. S.StewartM. C.WhiteleyP. (2009). The American voter’s British cousin. Electoral Studies, 28, 632-641.
21.
CoxG. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 903-935.
22.
CuriniL.MartelliP. (2010). Ideological proximity and valence competition: Negative campaigning through allegation of corruption in the Italian legislative arena from 1946 to 1994. Electoral Studies, 29, 636-647.
23.
DaltonR. J. (2008). The quantity and the quality of party systems. Comparative Political Studies, 20(10), 1-22.
24.
DamoreD. F. (2002). Candidate Strategy and the Decision to Go Negative. Political Research Quarterly, 55(3), 669-686.
25.
DebusM. (2008). Office and policy payoffs in coalition governments. Party Politics, 14, 515-538.
26.
De WinterL. (2002). Parties and government formation, portfolio allocation, and policy definition. In LutherK. R.Müller-RommelF. (Eds.), Political parties in the New Europe: Political and analytical challenges (pp. 171-206). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
Elmelund-PræstekærC. (2010). Beyond American negativity: Toward a general understanding of the determinants of negative campaigning. European Political Science Review, 2, 137-156.
28.
EnelowJ.HinichM. (1982). Nonspatial candidate characteristics and electoral competition. Journal of Politics, 44, 115-130.
29.
EnsleyM. J. (2007). Candidate divergence, ideology, and vote choice in U.S. Senate elections. American Politics Research, 35, 103-122.
30.
GreenJ. (2007). When voters and parties agree: Valence issues and party competition. Political Studies, 55, 629-655.
31.
GreenJ.HoboltS. B. (2008). Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies, 27, 460-476.
32.
GreenJ.JenningsW. (2012). Valence as macro-competence: An analysis of mood in party competence evaluations in Great Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 311-343.
33.
GrosecloseT. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 862-886.
34.
HansenK. M.PedersenR. T. (2008). Negative campaigning in a multiparty system. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31, 408-427.
35.
KunicovaJ.Rose-AckermanS. (2005). Electoral rules and constitutional structures as constraints on corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 35, 573-606.
36.
LaverM.BudgeI. (Eds.). (1992). Party policy and government coalitions. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
37.
LaverM.SergentiE. (2012). Party competition: An agent-based model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
LoweW.BenoitK.MikhaylovS.LaverM. (2011). Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26, 123-155.
39.
McDonaldM.BudgeI. (2005). Elections, parties, and democracy: Conferring the median mandate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
MeirowitzA. (2008). Electoral contests, incumbency advantages and campaign Finance. Journal of Politics, 27, 681-699.
41.
PapkeL. E.WooldridgeJ. M. (2008). Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rates. Journal of Econometrics, 145, 121-133.
42.
PlümperT.TroegerV. E. (2007). The estimation of time-invariant and rarely changing variables in finite sample panel analyses with unit effects. Political Analysis, 15, 124-139.
43.
RogersW. H. (1993). Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin, 13, 19-23.
44.
SampsonA. (1977). The Arms Bazaar: From Lebanon to Lockheed. New York: Viking Press.
45.
SchofieldN. (2003). Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 371-383.
46.
SchofieldN.SenedI. (2006). Multiparty democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
SerraG. (2010). Polarization of what? A model of elections with endogenous valence. Journal of Politics, 72, 426-437.
48.
SidesJ. (2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 407-436.
49.
SigelmanL.BuellE. H. (2004). Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in U.S. presidential campaigns, 1960-2000. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 650-661.
50.
SkaperdasS.GrofmanB. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 49-61.
51.
StokesD. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57, 368-377.
52.
StokesD. E. (1992). Valence politics. In KavanaghD. (Ed.), Electoral politics (pp. 141-162). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
53.
StoneW. J.SimasE. N. (2010). Candidate valence and ideological positions in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 371-388.
54.
VolkensA.LacewellO.RegelS.SchultzeH.WernerA. (2009). The Manifesto data collection: Manifesto project. Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
55.
WoldendorpJ.KemanH.BudgeI. (2000). Party government in 48 democracies. London, England: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
56.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
57.
ZakharovA. V. (2009). A model of candidate location with endogenous valence. Public Choice, 138, 347-366.
58.
ZakharovaM.WarwickP. V. (2014). The sources of valence judgments: The role of policy distance and the structure of the left-right spectrum. Comparative Political Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0010414013516928
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
